ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

section 68 of the Act. 7.1 The facts of the case are not in dispute. There was substantial increase in the sales of the assessee during the period of demonetization and it was the contention of the AO that these sales were bogus sales, which had been introduced in the books of account with an aim to bring

NEERAJ JAISWAL AND OTHERS,BAREILLY vs. ACIT-1, BAREILLY

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 & ( S.A. No.08/Lkw/2025) In Ita. No.33/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year 2020-21 Neeraj Jaiswal & Others Vs. The Acit-1 Green Park, Bareilly-243001. ‘C.R. Building’, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Aaaan4041K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 by the AO, the addition made is bad in law be deleted. 4. Because the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the creditors not being in dispute, none of the evidences filed by the assessee explaining the deposits/advances/unsecured loans having not been found false or untrue, the CIT(A), NFAC, was not justified in upholding the addition, which

RAKESH KUMAR,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), BARABANKI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

68 of the Act. 2.1 It was further noticed by the AO that the assessee had made cash deposits, amounting to Rs.39,87,400/- and Rs.9,41,206/-, totaling to Rs.49,28,606/- through banking channels during the year under consideration in addition to cash deposits in SBNs during the demonetization period. Since the assessee failed to furnish the books

WAKEEL AHAMAD,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr Wakeel Ahamad Income Tax Officer-2(3) V. Sheeshgarh, Meerganj, Bareilly, Aayakar Bhawan, C.R. Uttar Pradesh-243505. Building, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly, (Up)-243001. Pan:Ajcpa9737B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

68,640/-. The Assessing Officer felt constrained to pass exparte assessment order under section 144 of the Act because the assessee failed to comply with the notices under section 148 of the Act and under section 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.22,62,000/- deposited in cash in the assessee

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

249:(2021)437ITR285(Del) HIGH COURT OF\nDELHI has held that :-\n\n\"The fact that the AO has not given reasons in the\nassessment order is not indicative, always, of whether\nor not he has applied his mind. Therefore, scrutiny of\nthe record, is necessary and while scrutinising the\nrecord the Court hasto keep in mind the difference\nbetween

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

MOHD. AYAZ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

68,97,549/-. 4. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) records the fact that he issued five notices to the assessee but did not receive any response with regard to any of them. He, therefore, concluded that the assessee was not interested in pursuing this appeal

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page 6 of 13 35. Regarding service of notice/order etc, a. As noted in para-1 above, appellant is an old lady of 68 years. Her husband Sri Babulal Yadav died on 17-12-1994, She brought up her children solely with small amount of family pension, agricultural income and honorarium from Anganwadi’. Her total income was below

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page 6 of 13 35. Regarding service of notice/order etc, a. As noted in para-1 above, appellant is an old lady of 68 years. Her husband Sri Babulal Yadav died on 17-12-1994, She brought up her children solely with small amount of family pension, agricultural income and honorarium from Anganwadi’. Her total income was below

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 292BB not applicable- Reassessment not validIncome Tax Act, 1961, ss. 143,147,292BB 336 ITR 678 - CIT V/s Rajeev Sharma (Allahabad) (Case laws Paper book pages 62- 68) Reassessment - Procedure - Return in response to Notice u/s 148 - Assessing Officer www.taxguru.in (8 of 13) [ITA-197/2018 must apply his mind and issue Notice u/s 143(2) - Procedure must